Jacob + Mary subplot... why? - 25th Hour (2003) Discussion

[–] galidado 12 years ago

yeah i didnt really get all the build up ... i at least expected a scene back on school grounds after the club night. There should have been some proper connection to what was happening to monty, dunno something that jacob takes from all that, which then reflects on how everything with mary turns out.
But yeah, that was all a bit random

nonetheless, i really enjoyed those two in the movie

reply

[–] floyd_benoir 11 years ago

I thought this subplot had alot to do with consequences and paying for them. Phillip Seymour Hoffman's face after he kisses her is priceless.

reply

[–] HOKfilms 11 years ago

yeah, this subplot almost ruins the movie for me. It'd be near perfect if this wasnt thrown in there. Even if there was a point to it as somebody above mentioned, it still didnt work and just took away from the only story I was interested in.

I <3 Emily Blunt

reply

[–] mitzibishi 9 years ago

It built Hoffmans character otherwise he would be just a nobody 2 dimensional character in each scene.

And it showed even though he was the smart one, the academic he was also flawed who made mistakes.

reply

[–] HOKfilms 11 years ago

If anybody's interested, I took it upon myself to re-edit the movie to remove most of this subplot. I havent watched the edited version, but it sure would be nice if somebody watched it to let me know what they think.

I <3 Emily Blunt

reply

[–] DoctorShemp 11 years ago

If anybody's interested, I took it upon myself to re-edit the movie to remove most of this subplot. I havent watched the edited version, but it sure would be nice if somebody watched it to let me know what they think.

No offense but that sounds retarded.

reply

[–] HOKfilms 11 years ago

No offense taken. I find most strangers opinions retarded too.

I <3 Emily Blunt

reply

[–] jimmybags57 11 years ago

It was not pointless. The point was to utilize the talents of the extremely gifted Philip Seymour Hoffman. Spike didn't want to waste him.

reply

[–] galidado 11 years ago

you got it jimmy

reply

[–] MrBlondNYC 11 years ago

It's straight from the book on which the film is based. The book's author also wrote the screenplay.

George Carlin: It's all bullsh-t and it's bad for ya.

reply

[–] deathcreeper 11 years ago

It also highlights Hoffman could of in fact screwed his life up to, if that wee girl goes blabbing around. People make mistakes, just like Monty.

reply

[–] AfroGeek 11 years ago

Exactly! PSH was the only "straight" guy of the three, but facing his own personal temptation, he fell to it just like the other two did.

Amy: I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

reply

[–] Semisonic 10 years ago

PSH was the only "straight" guy of the three

What exactly was Frank's flaw then? I agree, he was way too slick and hardly likeable, but at least he's up front with it, which shows some consistent and solid personality.
But tagging him as crooked just for what, trading stocks and "defrauding foreign governments"? Come on!

reply

[–] lazarillo 10 years ago

If you have a good subplot, it doesn't necessarily matter that it's tangential to the main plot. You could also ask what's the point of the main plot.

Anna Paquin is VERY hot in this and she's probably every male professional educator's worst nightmare. Hoffman's character does a bad, but COMPLETELY understandable, thing just like one of his friends does socially acceptable bad things and the other does bad things that are definitely not socially acceptable, but also maybe understandable. Spike Lee HUMANIZES these characters rather than demonizes them. That's so much better than simply railing against drug dealers or "pedophiles" (the latter is particularly hypocritical and stupid since ANY straight male would have a raging hard-on if a sexy-looking 17-year-old female straddled his lap like that).

I saw this in theaters with my mother when it came out, and while she could be an outspoken feminist about some things, her comment on this was, "Oh, that poor guy!"

reply

[–] Semisonic 10 years ago

Hm, you probably intended to reply to someone else's comment. I didn't say that PSH's character was any bad. I was actually trying to say that the trader guy isn't that bad either.

reply

[–] Jbrown4124 (12) 6 years ago

you are right about Anna Paquin being hot!, had a huge crush on her during the late 90's/early 00's. she looked very good in this movie.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bbblover863 10 years ago

I haven't read the replies, but I think the point of this subplot is show how quickly/easily Jacob could have destroyed his whole life...and go down the same path of doing prison time as Monty was. I think the point is, it only takes 1 or 2 bad choices to turn someone's life upside down.

reply

[–] llll2000 10 years ago

wish he would have hit that

reply

[–] El_Guapo_Caballo 9 years ago

it only takes 1 or 2 bad choices to turn someone's life upside down.

Amen, so terribly truth, but that is how life is.

reply

[–] Manton29 9 years ago

I'd say the 'why' is just the screenwriter's interest in the themes/characters in that subplot and their mistake in not realising that it didn't really contribute anything of value to the film. That's what I'd say, if I was randomly expressing my opinion to strangers in a public forum. But what the hell do I know?

Manton

If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.

reply

[–] aqua1a 9 years ago

Also I thought it showed how their actions affected the victims. We saw the jonesing addict at the start and then Anna Paquins face after he kissed her said a lot. She had been playing a game, flirting, liking the power... but after he kissed her she seemed so confused, vulnerable, and young.

reply